Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

epincion Yes I know the Emily Bronte novel deals with a dark subject of a man driven to virtual madness by boyhood mistreatment and his perceived betrayal by a woman whom he loved but for me this film was a terrible interpretation. It was woodenly acted and given the wonderful language of the novel the script here was a joke. Disturbingly there was gratuitous killing of animals seen on film and this is simply unacceptable. Technically the film was very often annoyingly jerky (imagine the film from a hand-held camera on horseback) and essentially all night time scenes far too dark to see. Yes the reality of the era was that in poor stone farm houses it would have been very dark and dingy but with modern digital cameras such 'natural light' scenes can be enhanced so that the audience can see -as was well shown in the recent excellent BBC Wolf Hall series. I was excited at the thought of a major role in a classic of English literature going to a non-white actor and that was the one good thing I can say but everything else was dreadful. Don't bother is my advice.

keishuusakka What the did with the ambient (decoration, costumes, lighting) was fine and even making Heathcliff a black person instead of a "gipsy" would have work out... but the script and the characters were so effing messed up that didn't seem to be faithful to the essence of the novel. What the hell is wrong with Heathcliff's reactions? Where is the hate and the thirst of revenge? Hindley calls him a "thieving n*gger" and he doesn't react, his "revenge" is just buying the farm. Edgar Linton kicking the sh*t outta him.. really? There are also a couple of scenes with Isabella (Heathcliff biting her lip and licking her ear) that seemed simply odd. The cruelty towards the dogs is unnecessary too. The omission of the "I'm Heathcliff" speech is the worst part... I get it, it's not supposed to be exactly as the book, since it's an adaptation but what they did here, is a slaughter. Really, they tore apart the story.

grantss Dull and confusing version of the Emily Bronte classic, despite attempting to make it more edgy. Starts quite slowly, and vaguely, hits its stride in the middle, and falls apart at the end. The edginess is about the only positive, but it does feel like a hard slog to get through.Kaya Scodelario is OK as (the older) Cathy but James Howson is unconvincing as (older) Heathcliff and contributes greatly to the dullness of the movie. And, hey, where was the Kate Bush soundtrack? That was what I was looking forward to most...

MissSimonetta Being a hardcore fan of Emily Bronte's original novel, I have seen the majority of the available film and television versions of Wuthering Heights. Not one does the book justice, but most are entertaining or even works of art in their own right. The only downright "bad" version I had seen up until yesterday had been the ungodly 2003 MTV adaptation, which features a whiny rock star Heathcliff and a Catherine with the personality of sandpaper. However, this recent adaptation looked excellent from the trailers, mixed reviews aside. While I was slightly disappointed to discover that Andrea Arnold's 2011 version only included the first half of the book, I had some hope because of the casting of Heathcliff (who was NOT white in the book) and the way I had heard she captured the bleakness of the Yorkshire setting.But God, was this awful! One of the most pretentious, meandering films I have ever seen, a true chore to get through. The majority of the film is nothing but shots of dead animals and the moors; while the setting is extremely important, I think Arnold put way too much emphasis on it in expense to the characters, though maybe that decision was fueled by the fact that most of the actors are wooden, with the exception of young Heathcliff and Catherine. There is no passion in a one of them, not ideal when adapting a story about obsessive passion. Maybe the repetitive nature of the film is supposed to echo the cyclic structure of the novel, but in a less entertaining or insightful manner? There's also a great deal of shock value in the film, likely put in there to emulate the way the original book was shocking to its 19th century readership. But most of it gets so silly: why are Hindley and Frances consummating their marriage out in the grass? Do we really need this many f-bombs in the script? Hey, why don't we kill another ram in loving detail? Or have Heathcliff practically make love to Catherine's corpse? Because shock value equals raw grittiness! Making the camera shake makes it "realistic"! This is Art! Okay, I'll be a little bit nicer from now on. There are some positive aspects: As mentioned, the scenery and child actors are lovely. There are a great deal of shots of Heathcliff observing the other characters and the like, emphasizing his status as an outsider. The general lack of background music was nice, but none of these elements can save this ship from crashing.This film is obviously attempting to bring WH into the realm of cinematic realism, but is that really the way to go with what is essentially a Gothic ghost story? That Arnold and her collaborators stripped out all of the supernatural aspects, such as the iconic moment of Catherine's ghost at the window, is telling of how much they had hoped to set this adaptation apart. And considering that the filmmakers' idea of "naturalism" is just stiff acting and shaking the camera as though the cameraman had consumed too much caffeine for his own good, it's not at all a worthy attempt. This is a film which is ineffective as art or drama; definitely not something I would willingly watch again.